From time to time, for the past thirty years, I have ventured
to discuss nomenclatural problems with my next-door neighbor in
the University Herbarium, Paul Silva. This could be done in the
brief moments when one could find him relatively unoccupied and
not discussing nomenclatural problems with botanists in various
fields in person, over the phone, or by e-mail.

Among these questions have been the following examples
concerning holotypes, lectotypification, and homonyms (see
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, St. Louis Code
[Greuter et al., 2001], Art. 9, and the recommendation 9A.2 that
all aspects of the protologue should be considered when a
lectotype is designated; Art. 53.1 concerning the illegitimacy of
later homonyms).
The St. Louis Code, Art. 9.2, states that a
lectotype is to be selected if the holotype is not indicated in
the protologue or if it is missing.
Only specimens that are part of the original material used for the
description of a new taxon are candidates for lectotypification.
The lectotype must be chosen
from among isotypes if they exist, or from syntypes or paratypes
(Art. 9.10, which states that if no cited specimens exist, the lectotype must be chosen from among illustrations and uncited specimens which comprise the remaining original material).
Art. 9.3 defines isotype as any
duplicate of the holotype.
A specimen having significant
disagreement with the protologue ought not to be considered for
lectotypification
even though it was part of the same mixed collection (see
Art. 9.17, which indicates that the choice may be superseded if
it is in serious conflict with the protologue and another element
is available that is not in conflict).

Usnea gigantea Vain. ex Räsänen (Räsänen, 1932, p. 7).

Usnea gigantea is a name that has not been encountered in recent
taxonomic literature, except for its inclusion in the
Checklist of Chilean lichen-forming and lichenicolous fungi
(Galloway and Quilhot, 1998). It was not listed by Motyka (1936,
1937, 1938).
Application of the name is uncertain, because
of differing opinions as to lectotypification.

In Index Nominum Lichenum (Lamb, 1963), Lamb indicated that the
locality of the type was Chile (repeated in Galloway and Quilhot,
1998). My first questioning of Paul
resulted in the comment that Lamb's statement seemed to be true at first
glance. However,
upon investigation, the situation becomes less clear-cut.
Räsänen listed two specimens from Vainio's
Herbarium at Turku: no. 84 and no. 467.
In addition to these,
the specimen seen by Räsänen
from Chiloé
(possibly at Helsinki)
would be regarded as a syntype. This specimen was collected by
H. Roivainen, April 4, 1929 from
bark, Puerto Barroso, Peninsula Tres Montes, Chiloé, Chile (Räsänen, 1932, p. IV).

Of the three syntypes,
no. 84 is an Umbilicaria, unrelated to Usnea (Dr. Soili
Stenroos, personal correspondence); no. 467 (near Bogota,
Colombia, leg. Fr. Emilion, 1898) is an inflated Usnea, broken
off at the base, which differs from the diagnosis by the presence
of indistinct verruculae and sparse, small fibrils bearing
inconspicuous soralia; the Chiloé specimen I have not seen.

If a strict view were to be taken of Räsänen's statement
that no soralia or verruculae are present, the explicitly cited
specimen of Usnea (no. 467) would seem to be ruled out as a
possible lectotype. If specimens can be found that were
available to Räsänen from the cited locality in Chiloé, then one
of these would be a logical lectotype, if it is concordant with
the protologue. If such specimens cannot be found, then a
neotype must be designated. My assumption is that
an appropriate lectotype or neotype
should have a strong resemblance to the Vainio
herbarium specimen 467 (perhaps resembling U. fuegiana Motyka,
which also is slightly verruculose).

Although Räsänen's diagnoses
ordinarily
provide little detail, when
verruculae or papillae were present, he usually mentioned them
(for example in U. comosa f. fuegica Räsänen [Räsänen, 1932, p. 9]). Generally speaking, his descriptions were brief and
imprecise, and measurements of anatomical structures were
lacking. Consequently, I do not regard no. 467 as seriously in
conflict with the protologue; its verruculae and soralia are
inconspicuous and the statement soredia et verruculae destituta
could be interpreted as not visible under the magnification used when description was written.

The list of taxa from southern Chile (Räsänen, 1932)
in which Räsänen described Usnea gigantea
included a large number of species, many previously described by
various authors. Because Räsänen provided Latin descriptions
for many of
the latter, it is not possible to use the presence of Latin to infer
that he was proposing a new species. Furthermore,
he listed Chilean localities for the specimens he
examined. Räsänen's attribution of
Usnea gigantea
to Vainio suggests
that his intent may have been to validly publish this herbarium name,
basing it on the Colombian specimen in Vainio's Herbarium (no.
467), and adding the Chilean locality record, representing
material not studied by Vainio (date of deathMay 14, 1929;
see Ann. Crypt. Exot. 3: 5. 1930). Nevertheless,
the Chiloé specimen is also a possible lectotype.

Three
localities in Estonia
were given: 1) Vi. Vägeva (Kar.); 2) Sa.
Kuresaare an Lärche (Larix); 3) Sa. Kihelkonna an Picea excelsa (Räs.).
(Sa. referred to Saaremaa, the island; Vi referred to Virumaa near the coast of the Gulf of Finland; see Halonen and Ahti, 2002). An apparent syntype has been found at TUR (Vägeva, 3 July 1924, Kari s.n., TUR) and this specimen, identified as U. subfloridana Stirt. (a taxon having isidiate soraliacf. Räsänen, 1939), has been designated as the lectotype by Halonen and Ahti (2002).

Räsänen (1939) augmented the descriptive information of the
protologue (Räsänen, 1931) under the name Usnea fulvoreagens
Räsänen in a survey of lichens in the area bordering Lake
Laatokka. Among the localities given were Lapinlahti and
Otsanlahti. Räsänen described the species as scarcely branched
and fibrillose, with the lateral branchlets bearing non-isidiate
soralia. The medulla was dense to sublax, at the base ca. KOH-,
toward the apex KOH+ fulvescent. It is not clear whether this
description applied more closely to those specimens near Lake
Laatokka than to those from Estonia, but he reported a similar
chemical reaction for both.

Motyka (1936) also proposed the new combination Usnea fulvoreagens,
but one year after Räsänen.
He cited Räsänen as author of the
basionym, but he incorrectly cited as type a specimen
not mentioned by
Räsänen,
namely a specimen from Kurkijoki, Lapinlahti, Finland.

Clerc (1987), cited as type (?) [query indicating uncertainty on the part of Clerc] of
U. fulvoreagens a
specimen at Helsinki from Kl. Kurkijoki Lapinlahti
and indicated that it has norstictic, stictic, and other acids.
This specimen is not an acceptable lectotype, since it was not part
of the original material.
Ohmura and Kashiwadani (2000 p. 170)
followed Clerc in listing (but without questioning its status)
the specimen from Lapinlahti as the type of
U. fulvoreagens (Räsänen) Räsänen.
Halonen and Ahti (2002)
have now proposed to conserve the name U. fulvoreagens with this specimen as the conserved type.

My photograph of what I assumed to be the type specimen
of U. fulvoreagens
in
1975 at Helsinki (i.e., thalli from Lapinlahti) shows 3 specimens mounted togethertwo with elongate
branch apices (one having norstictic acid was marked 1. possibly by Räsänen)
and one having short apices, with crowded fibrils, the chemistry of which is not known to me.
If these specimens represent the proposed conserved type, then the authors of the proposal should have indicated which of the specimens best represents their concept of U. fulvoreagens.

Motyka's description was
of a taxon having a narrow, loose
medulla with a KOH yellow, then subrubescent reaction, minute,
briefly cylindrical papillae, dense fibrils, and indistinct
branch apices that are densely soraliate.
This description fits more closely the specimen having short apices and crowded fibrils mentioned above.

Tuckerman's original description (in Agassiz, 1850) gave two Lake
Superior syntypesone collected by C.T. Jackson, 1845, and one by
Agassiz, 1848. In addition he cited one from the White Mts. [New Hampshire],
1843 (collected by Tuckerman, according to Eileen Wozek, Farlow
Herbariumpersonal communication), and also mentioned a syntype
from Madras, India (obviously another taxon).

In order for lectotypification to be effected properly,
it will be necessary to specify which of the original specimens
is referred to, because neither the 1845 nor the 1848 specimen was collected by Tuckerman, as implied by the citation.

Awasthi (1986) lectotypified U. sulcata on
00450 TUR-VAIN.
She cited U. sulcata as a synonym of
U. angulata,
describing U. sulcata as similar to U. angulata, but more
thickened, and stating but other characters are identical. She
also examined specimen no. 453; i.e., Exs. no. 922.
Herrera-Campos et al. (1998) followed Awasthi's lectotypification
and they also considered U. sulcata conspecific
with U. angulata.

It is pertinent to point out, however, that
Usnea angulata Ach. is a soraliate
species, whereas U. sulcata was described by Motyka (1937) as
apotheciate, with no soralia or isidia mentioned in the
protologue. Although he did not specifically state that U. sulcata is esorediate, he contrasted it with the soraliate species U. paradoxa (see above). Herrera-Campos et al. did not refer to apothecia in
their description of U. angulata, and they later mentioned the
apotheciate species, U. alata Motyka, as the primary species of
U. angulata (p. 327), i.e., the corresponding apotheciate member
of a species pair.
No. 00450 (Vainio exs. 388) appears to have some small, poorly developed apothecia, and is also sorediate-isidiate, whereas no apothecia are visible on Vainio exs. nos. 389 (451), 922 (453), 953 (452) (Dr. Soili Stenroos, personal communication). Motyka listed the type as from Sitio, 1885; he gave no other information (see also Alava, 1986, p. 156). It should be noted that Vainio (1890, pt. 1, p. 11), under U. angulata, stated that Sitio specimens were sterile. This statement might have been used to refer either to pycnidial specimens on which apothecia had not yet developed, or to specimens producing isidia or soralia.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to thank the directors and curatorial staffs of the
following herbaria: H, TUR, and FH for their assistance during
visits in the 1970's and for information sent by correspondence.
Especially I want to express my appreciation for the invaluable advice and
counsel given me by Paul Silva, and for the use of his library.
I very much appreciate the editorial
advice and assistance of Richard L. Moe.

REFERENCES

Alava, R. 1986.

Edvard August Vainio's Journey to Brazil in
1885 and his Lichenes Brasilienses Exsiccati.
Publications from the Herbarium, University of Turku
1: 1176.

Agassiz, L. 1850.

Lake Superior: Its Physical Character, Vegetation, and Animals, Compared with Those of Other and Similar Regions.
Gould, Kendall and Lincoln, Boston.

Clerc, P. 1987.

Systematics of the Usnea fragilescens aggregate
and its distribution in Scandinavia.
Nordic Journal of Botany
7:479495.